[Norm Peterson]

Originally Posted by Number 3

For what it's worth, Mary Barra came up through Manufacturing, Mark Reuss, Product Development.

And most people that come up through the "business side" realize you need product and sales to make money.

And regardless of what I want to do in product development, I have to have a business case or as GM puts it ROIC. So Product and Business are intertwined.

Also when I hear "business side" I think people mean Finance. But "business side" can mean a whole bunch of roles.

I'm referring to business management more generally than just finance. I remember when getting your MBA really became the big thing to do if you wanted to get into management. I also remember that most of the people who went that route didn't see themselves wanting to stay at a hands-on level with the product. Or even remain in the same industry.

Would you consider Ms. Barra to be cut from the same cloth as a Lee Iacocca or a Bob Lutz?


Norm

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by Norm Peterson

I'm referring to business management more generally than just finance. I remember when getting your MBA really became the big thing to do if you wanted to get into management. I also remember that most of the people who went that route didn't see themselves wanting to stay at a hands-on level with the product. Or even remain in the same industry.

Would you consider Ms. Barra to be cut from the same cloth as a Lee Iacocca or a Bob Lutz?



Norm

Definitely not Bob. But Lee was also a great innovator of product. Mary's forte is driving the business and keeping it profitable. And she is, despite the hate I read, doing great at that. Too many people think a good CEO is like Jobs or Musk hugely invested in every decision. But Cook has done great for Apple post Jobs and he isn't the innovator/creator. And the CEO's biggest job is to make sure the Board and by default stockholders are happy. And that count she hasn't done well as even though GM is 10x more profitable than Tesla (and Tesla has yet to make a dime making cars) GM stock is languishing well behind.

So trust me, there are a ton of people at GM and Ford (sorry Dodge you have been a foreign owned company for too many years now) that would love to have a Camaro sell well and be working on a future Gen7 with an awesome ICE under the hood. Despite what many think there are a ton of car people left. However, it's not selling now, the architecture it's based on goes away leaving the Camaro an expensive orphan (and a reminder Gen6 was always going to be expensive when they picked a Cadillac architecture to base it on) and GM has stated that they will go all electric. So it's not a matter of if but when. So those same Engineers and Managers that understand this website and the people that love cars are now limited to Corvette. And many years ago the guy that is now Chief Engineer on Corvette was one of many that used to approach me for a job just to work on Corvette. That passion is still there. It's just now funneled into programs that not many here don't appreciate or understand the need for. So that's Barra's role is to bring the company to that next level and do it well. The failure will be to go all electric and not do it better, cheaper and more interesting that the competition. There is a risk that she (and others) are wrong.

[UnknownJinX]

Originally Posted by Petrol Head

Those aren't real Lambos or Astons anyway.



As someone who witnessed, first hand about 10 years ago, a 1980s 911 owner come glaringly close to being arrested for assault on an innocent Porsche rep at the auto show because Porsche had decided to start selling SUVs, I can tell you that you may not understand where purists and enthusiasts stand.



And please do not try.



And please do not give your side of it, or your opinion, or why you think we're wrong.



You simply do not understand, never will, and it should be left at that.

Well, companies have to keep the lights on. If Porsche kept only making sports cars, I think it might have ended up like Lotus. No money, no product development, no one is happy.

And while Ferrari doesn't have an SUV, Maserati does(Levante) and that uses a Ferrari engine.

Sure you can dump on business and finance people all you want, but the reality remains that the economy of scale is a big factor in making stuff nowadays.

The real bottom line is that they shouldn't, say, make an SUV and call it 911. That would be a real slap in the face for enthusiasts. The thing is to strike a balance where you want to be making enough money, but not get too greedy that you start losing identity.

Alas, "you either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain."

[shaffe]

1. Didn't GM kind of back track on the all in on electric

2. The amount of people who stop for more than just gas on road trips shocked me lol, maybe I am the outlier there. Road trip for me the car only makes 2 stops. Stop 1 is that the Car stops for gas, if you need the bathroom or food you get it while the car is getting gas. Stop 2 is the destination

[soloknight6]

Originally Posted by UnknownJinX

Well, companies have to keep the lights on. If Porsche kept only making sports cars, I think it might have ended up like Lotus. No money, no product development, no one is happy.

And while Ferrari doesn't have an SUV, Maserati does(Levante) and that uses a Ferrari engine.

Sure you can dump on business and finance people all you want, but the reality remains that the economy of scale is a big factor in making stuff nowadays.

The real bottom line is that they shouldn't, say, make an SUV and call it 911. That would be a real slap in the face for enthusiasts. The thing is to strike a balance where you want to be making enough money, but not get too greedy that you start losing identity.

Alas, "you either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain."

Ferrari will have a hybrid SUV out next year, they are calling it the Purosangue, and it will be replacing the Ferrari wagon in their lineup.

You hit the nail on the head though regarding sports car manufacturers needing to build SUV's to make money. Excellent example using Lotus.

[Petrol Head]

Originally Posted by Number 3

Definitely not Bob. But Lee was also a great innovator of product. Mary's forte is driving the business and keeping it profitable. And she is, despite the hate I read, doing great at that. Too many people think a good CEO is like Jobs or Musk hugely invested in every decision. But Cook has done great for Apple post Jobs and he isn't the innovator/creator.

Cook can thank the billions of people around the world who like lemmings will buy a new iPhone every time they sneeze, even though there hasn’t been anything remotely innovative since Jobs died.

GM isn’t that lucky. They are still paying for the sins of the Olds 350 Diesel and HT4100 (which oh by the way, Mary Marra was in quality control for the HT4100 engines as a youngster engineer when they were in final development yet she’s the CEO now. As a wise man once said: huh?).

People do not and will not buy GM products like lemmings. At least not any more. I love my Camaro and came back to GM after 20 years in Hondas specifically for the Camaro. I’m frankly and quite honestly the customer who’s ass any GM employee should be kissing right now because I swore the company off forever in 1999 after my horrible experience with my 1990 Beretta GT (paint primer down your windshield when it rained was so much fun).

But if you don’t build what I want you simply lose me again, capisce?

[Petrol Head]

Originally Posted by Seniorrs

Remember when the Ford probe almost became a mustang?

That was a unifying moment. I’m no Ford fan but even I wrote to Ford about that.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by Seniorrs

Remember when the Ford probe almost became a mustang?

Little known fact...Beretta was almost the replacement for Camaro. Seeing how well the whole Probe thing went, plans changed.

[Hops]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Little known fact...Beretta was almost the replacement for Camaro. Seeing how well the whole Probe thing went, plans changed.

wow, did NOT know that, that is truly scary! .... if things went a little differently we'd have both a wrong wheel drive Camaro and Mustang... well probably for a only a little while.

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by Hops

wow, did NOT know that, that is truly scary! .... if things went a little differently we'd have both a wrong wheel drive Camaro and Mustang... well probably for a only a little while.

Google the GM80 program if want to see what might have been. Luckily it failed some early tests of the architecture and was shelved.

[Norm Peterson]

Originally Posted by Number 3

Well if Lamborghini and Aston Martin have an SUV..........

I did catch mention of efforts to lower H-points and rooflines in OP's video link. For me, those would be 'hard' must-haves even with an EV's typically lower CG height - at over 63" tall the Mach E is still several inches too tall for me. Related, I've got a considered opinion or two regarding seating posture vs pedal inputs (hint: chair-like seating is a non-starter for me, and I'm of average height so it's not a head to headliner issue).


Norm

[UnknownJinX]

Originally Posted by soloknight6

Ferrari will have a hybrid SUV out next year, they are calling it the Purosangue, and it will be replacing the Ferrari wagon in their lineup.

You hit the nail on the head though regarding sports car manufacturers needing to build SUV's to make money. Excellent example using Lotus.

That's not surprising, and I am sure some NA purists already hate Ferrari for turbocharging. As long as they call it a different name, it's all fair game.

[redcoats1976]

Originally Posted by Norm Peterson

The fear is that Chevrolet will follow suit. The various outlines drawn over that single platform in post #1's video link don't do a damn thing to put such fears to rest.



To the average person, electric motors are still more closely related to household appliances which come with a distinctly 'domesticated' flavor. The Camaro's reputation is . . . somewhat different.



Calling EVs "appliances" can't be any worse than personally being called a Luddite - directly or otherwise - for being opposed to either owning an EV or watching the Camaro become one.



If a great coupe makes it, not being called a Camaro wouldn't matter. If it failed, calling it a Camaro would not save it.


Norm

why is there no "like " button on this forum.well said...

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by Petrol Head

Cook can thank the billions of people around the world who like lemmings will buy a new iPhone every time they sneeze, even though there hasn’t been anything remotely innovative since Jobs died.

GM isn’t that lucky. They are still paying for the sins of the Olds 350 Diesel and HT4100 (which oh by the way, Mary Marra was in quality control for the HT4100 engines as a youngster engineer when they were in final development yet she’s the CEO now. As a wise man once said: huh?).

People do not and will not buy GM products like lemmings. At least not any more. I love my Camaro and came back to GM after 20 years in Hondas specifically for the Camaro. I’m frankly and quite honestly the customer who’s ass any GM employee should be kissing right now because I swore the company off forever in 1999 after my horrible experience with my 1990 Beretta GT (paint primer down your windshield when it rained was so much fun).

But if you don’t build what I want you simply lose me again, capisce?

That’s the secret to every successful business. Actually not really a secret.

But there is more than the product it’s also how you make your customer feel. Countless articles on how Android phones are technologically ahead of Apple on may counts, yet Apple has half the market. Tesla makes a pretty crappy car and the Model S, the flagship is 10 years old with only updates. In both cases the customers with the “inferior” product feel better, even smarter for their purchase.

You are absolutely correct, GM will pay for many years to come for errors made years ago.

But here is a perspective on GM’s past. At one point they got so big the government tried to break them. So they started look at making cars off of a basket of parts. Cars weren’t differentiated or styled enough different across the brands. At that point the Japanese and Germans started their inroads and GM started losing sales. And then they needed to find ways to pay for the legacy costs. By the 90s products suffered simply because every program started with a $2,500 penalty to pay for retire healthcare and pensions. And to make a program with that albatross work they had to cut costs even further. A downward death spiral. I remember over hearing an exec say, “if we can just make it 20 years and we start to lose the retirees……..”

Long story short you’ve hit on GMs problem. And they will have to overcome that in a big way with the new EVs. GM will have to be bigger, faster, stronger than the competition, tough competition with many having a head start. And frankly you can see GM launching the Lyriq 9 months earlier and to make that happen it’s only the base RWD version with moderate performance just to catch up.

Good post.